|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is an Articulate Informed Creationist | |||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: which is better, to ask an evolutionist about his opinion of what makes a good creationist, or to ask a creationist? Perhaps a good idea would be a "creationists only" thread. It would be interesting to hear opinions on the question in this thread's O.P. title. But what I'd really like to see is a creationists only thread debating the numerous different types/theories of creationism. To attempt to challenge the Theory of Evolution, a coherent, united theory is required. Imagine an equivalent of RAZD's "Definition of the Theory of Evolution" thread. At present, it would be chaos. Would any creationists like to start up a "Definition of Creationism Theory" thread? It should be for creationists only, perhaps. Not for evolutionists to chime in and say "that's rubbish", or whatever, because the purpose is to establish a wording to describe a theory, not to debate it the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3068 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Buz, if you're going to accuse others of bias your implicit endorsement of Ray completely undermines your case. As if Buzsaw is dumb and naive to agree with a Atheist-evolutionist (PaulK) against a fellow Creationist. "This type of coercion worked on TEists ("Christian" evolutionists) maybe it will work again as needed" = that is what PaulK is attempting to do. PaulK has lost every debate that I have encountered him. If his intellect was able he would not need another Creationist to give him a victory by reverse psychology. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
In an earlier post I stated and argued a self-evident axiomatic fact: Whoever the Atheist-evolutionists praise is the most pseudo and wrong and whoever they condemn is the most right and threatening to their dogma. Since PaulK is the epitome of an Atheist-evolutionist, and since he says I am the very least or worst (or any other synonym) this logically means that I am the exact opposite. Logic says the Atheist-evolutionist WOULD NEVER approve of a real Christian-Creationist. PaulK's condemnation means I am exactly that. In a way, you've got a good point there. What I'm trying to figure out is whether your description of Paul as the "epitome of an Atheist-evolutionist" is the equivalent of his comment on you, which implied that you were just about the worst Creationist on the board. It would have helped if you'd simply returned the compliment, and described him as the worst atheist-evolutionist around. Then we could simply have applied your logic, and come to the conclusion that he's a really good atheist evolutionist. The fact that you describe him as the "epitome of an atheist evolutionist" leads me to believe that he may be a fraud. Perhaps even an undercover creationist. If so, he's a good one. Or should I have said a bad one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6102 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
I am really puzzled at this forum.Why? The title is Evolution-Creation forum. In reality, it is only a discourse on Evolution.Even most of the Administrators support evolution. There is practically no creationist as a moderator. For example, in our Government, we have a Senate judicial committee and this is made up of equal number of both Democrats and Republicans so that it is fully balanced. Comparing this to our forum, it is totally out of balance. This forum is only for Evolution. Anyone questioning the general consensus( not facts) is shot down. So, in future, the name need to be changed only to accomodate the views of evolutionists. Creationists have no place. We will disappear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
inkorrekt writes: Anyone questioning the general consensus( not facts) is shot down. So, in future, the name need to be changed only to accomodate the views of evolutionists. Creationists have no place. We will disappear. I've noticed this on other forums debating Evolution/Creation, inkorrekt. The evolutionists dominate. Creationists have faith, that's all, and saying "I have faith in my view" is not much of an argument. For example, you might have faith that the flower fairies pollinate the flowers. But try arguing about it with biologists and botanists who know a lot about about plant reproduction, and it would be difficult to prove your faith, wouldn't it? That's the essence of the problem. There is no evidence for creation, and plenty for evolution, so the evolutionists have an unfair start, don't they? I personally make it easy for myself, and always make sure I'm on the side where the evidence lies in such debates. Why not try the same?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
It is not a book, it is a large paper that will appear on-line. oh, that's terribly disappointing. i was hoping for something nice to put on my bookshelf.
My work will wipe the smile off of your face, that is, the one I see underneath the words you write. do you mean to imply that the words i wrote were anything less than sincere? i'm hurt, ray. you know i enjoy reading your posts.
NosyNed wondered aloud why I do not publish my evidence before I get scooped as this is what persons do who have produced original evidence. I never had a chance to tell him that his admonition is a constant and traumatic concern of mine. But I have no choice since I cannot publish what I have until finished or it will not make sense. I am going as fast as I can. ok, ok, no rush. i can wait, i'm just quite curious.
For what they are worth, thanks for the compliments. you're welcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Perhaps a good idea would be a "creationists only" thread. It would be interesting to hear opinions on the question in this thread's O.P. title. well, creationists should be able to give their input in this thread. so far, they have seem reluctant, unwilling (innable?) to answer, or just plain insulted. but they are the people we need to hear from here.
But what I'd really like to see is a creationists only thread debating the numerous different types/theories of creationism. To attempt to challenge the Theory of Evolution, a coherent, united theory is required. well, you need a little more than that. you need a coherent united theory that explains all the evidence that evolution has correctly predicted, and predict something that is totally distinct from the result evolution would predict. and then test and confirm that prediction. but the problem with that is that there so very, very many pieces of evidence correctly predicted by evolution in the last 150 years that, for all intents and purposes, any competing theory under the above definition would be evolution with a small modification. this is why the more scientifically-inclined creationists more or less accept about 90-99% of evolution (ie: behe). on the other end, there's "dinosaurs bones were put there by the devil!" creationism is everything in between. Edited by arachnophilia, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I am really puzzled at this forum.Why? The title is Evolution-Creation forum. In reality, it is only a discourse on Evolution. due to lack of creationist participation. which is partially due to the fact that they seem to get suspended and banned. thus, this thread.
Even most of the Administrators support evolution. There is practically no creationist as a moderator. phat, anastasia, buzsaw, nem_jug, christian, and hangdawg are creationists (correct me if i'm wrong). faith, when she was here, was very breifly an admin as well. granted, there does not seem to be much participation by our creationist admins, and there aren't very many of them. frankly, a creationist is probably more likely to get asked to be an admin than an evolutionist, if they stick around long enough. there are more evolutionists to choose from. however, the choice is often hard -- how can someone in need of constant moderation be a moderator themselves?
For example, in our Government, we have a Senate judicial committee and this is made up of equal number of both Democrats and Republicans so that it is fully balanced. Comparing this to our forum, it is totally out of balance. america is close to 50/50 between the two parties. this board's population is not 50/50 evo/creo. that's the problem. we don't get many creationists here, and when we do, a lot get banned for bad behaviour. how can we fix this? i don't know. please feel free to suggest something.
Anyone questioning the general consensus( not facts) is shot down. So, in future, the name need to be changed only to accomodate the views of evolutionists. Creationists have no place. We will disappear. no, creationists are already disappearing. frankly, this forum is pretty damned boring without any controversy, so i think of this as a problem. many people here do. why do creationists avoid this place? why do they not stay long? why do they get banned more often than the evo population?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And most creationist believe that everyone is entitled to have their opinion, right or wrong does not matter. I'm speechless, but fortunately no comment is necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In an earlier post I stated and argued a self-evident axiomatic fact: Whoever the Atheist-evolutionists praise is the most pseudo and wrong and whoever they condemn is the most right and threatening to their dogma. Since PaulK is the epitome of an Atheist-evolutionist, and since he says I am the very least or worst (or any other synonym) this logically means that I am the exact opposite. Logic says the Atheist-evolutionist WOULD NEVER approve of a real Christian-Creationist. PaulK's condemnation means I am exactly that. Recently, the Atheist-evolutionists over at TalkOrigins voted me "Chief Loon" almost unanimous. Logically, this means I am the exact opposite. What's the meaning of the fact that theist evolutionists also think you're a loon? And what's the meaning of the fact that you can't even get your fellow-creationists to agree with your piffle about the Pyramids? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ICant writes: So you are telling me to be an informed person that believes in creation by God I have to believe that creationism's only hope of gaining entry into science classrooms hinges upon maintaining the appearance that creationism is science an not religion.That is ridiculous. I have to agree that creationism perse is not science, just as evolution perse is not science. Science is doing things of a scientific nature relative to subjects such as creationism or evolutionism. I can't speak for Percy but perhaps that's what Percy was aluding to. Creationism perse is neither religion or science. I suppose there are folks who would be regarded by some as articulate and informed creationists who are not religious. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
bluejeans writes: Creationists have faith, that's all, and saying "I have faith in my view" is not much of an argument. That's false, demeaning and unfair. There are all kinds of creationists, some informed and articulate, some less articulate but informed, some less informed but articulate and some who are none of these, as is the case with evolutionists. Some of us who have faith apply a whole lot more to debates on the issues than faith alone. Unsubstantiated faith is one thing but when substantiated by things like history, archeology, experience, et al, quite another. Some very articulate and informed creationists have faith but rely little on it in debate and forming opinions relative to many topics. Everytime you cross a bridge you exercise faith in the ability of the bridge to do it's job based on observtion and past experience. Failures such as we've recently observed do happen but faith alone is not why the hapless victims were on it when it failed. The same applies to informed creationists. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
well, you need a little more than that. you need a coherent united theory that explains all the evidence that evolution has correctly predicted, and predict something that is totally distinct from the result evolution would predict. and then test and confirm that prediction. Exactly. That's why the attempt should be made. Of course there won't be a coherent result. It's like the recent best evidence for creationism thread. It came up with appearance of design, and that's all. We're back with William Paley. But it helped. Our creationists are all going on about appearance of design right now. No less than three of them have managed to change "appearance of design" into "design" in mid argument in order to then challenge us with the undeniable truth that design needs a designer. The reason for the dearth of creationists isn't because of a few bannings. That's just a symptom of the impossible situation. You've explained the reason in your way in the post I'm replying to, and I explained it to a creationist a few posts above in mine. They're bankrupt of ideas. Perhaps without realising it, one of them has just come up with ideas based on the work of a Christian evolutionist. He's turning into Jar!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Everytime you cross a bridge you exercise faith in the ability of the bridge to do it's job based on observtion and past experience. If it's based on "observation and past experience", how is it "faith"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ICANT writes: So you are telling me to be an informed person that believes in creation by God I have to believe that creationism's only hope of gaining entry into science classrooms hinges upon maintaining the appearance that creationism is science an not religion. That is ridiculous. I agree. An informed creationist is aware that creationism's key short-term goal is its acceptance as every bit as much legitimate science as evolution.
I do not believe the Biblical account of creation should be taught in a science class, never have. But whether you agree with it or not, I assume you're aware that creationism's primary short-term goal is acceptance as legitimate science.
So I am still dumfounded about what an Articulate Informed Creationist is... "Articulate" probably doesn't need to be explained. For an example of an inarticulate creationist check out some of IamJoseph's posts. An "informed" creationist is one who understands, for a clear example, that it would be an incredibly dunderheaded move at a school board meeting considering inclusion of creationism in the science curriculum to use Christian religious arguments. I see this board as an opportunity for evolutionists and creationists to engage the question of creationism as legitimate science in the same way that creationists would portray it at school board meetings. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024